What do SBIR Evaluators look for?
There are at least three types of SBIR Evaluators, each with a unique perspective.
Note: This article is focused on Specific Topic Solicitations. Open Topics are slightly different because there is no specific mission need identified.
1. The Requirement Owner (RFP Creator)
Primary Concern: Does this solve the problem we defined in the solicitation?
Background: Much like full Source Selections, technical evaluation teams almost always include the Requirement Owner who sponsored the Request for Proposal (RFP) and was deeply involved in developing the requirements. They may or may not have deep technical expertise, but they best understand the pain point that the SBIR is intended to solve.
What They Look For:
Direct alignment with the topic: Your proposal should map tightly to the language, goals, and deliverables outlined in the RFP.
Understanding of mission need: They want to see that you “get” the operational pain point or capability gap the RFP is trying to address.
Feasibility within SBIR scope: They assess whether your approach is realistic within SBIR Phase I/II funding and timeline constraints.
Clear value proposition: They want to be able to clearly see how your innovation will benefit their agency or end-user.
Tip: Mirror key terms and phrases from the solicitation. Explicitly state how your solution addresses each aspect of the requirement.
2. The Subject Matter Expert (SME)
Primary Concern: Is this technically sound, innovative, and implementable?
Background: The SME could be a government employee with a technical background, a support contractor, or an employee of a Federally Funded Research and Development Contractor (FFRDC). If not a government employee, they will not be able to officially rate your proposal, but they will still be able to provide comments and recommendations, with effectively the same level of input.
What They Look For:
Novelty and innovation: They want to see how your technology advances the state-of-the-art.
Technical depth and rigor: They will scrutinize your methods, assumptions, performance metrics, and risk mitigation strategies.
Team expertise: They evaluate whether your team has the right experience and technical capabilities to pull this off.
Path to validation: They look for strong Phase I objectives and measurable milestones. For Phase II, they expect a credible development and transition plan.
Tip: Include clear diagrams, technical validation strategies, and cite prior art to show where your work fits into the broader technical landscape.
3. The Filler (Non-Technical Evaluator)
Primary Concern: Does this read well, make sense, and seem trustworthy?
Background: This is a government employee with limited technical experience. They are on the team in order to ensure a sufficient number of government employees submit ratings on the proposal without the final scores being entirely dependent on the Requirement Owner. Serving as an evaluator can be an opportunity for this person to gain experience and exposure to the acquisition process, or gain some technical knowledge. However, in many situations this may just be an “additional duty” that is taking them away from their primary job.
What They Look For:
Clarity and readability: They’ll be sensitive to how clearly and logically the proposal is written.
Professional presentation: Typos, confusing structure, or inconsistent formatting can be red flags.
General feasibility and impact: While not deeply technical, they will judge whether your idea “makes sense” and has plausible value.
Business potential: They may pay more attention to commercialization strategy and market potential.
Tip: Write in plain language wherever possible. Use formatting (headings, bullets, visuals) to make content scannable and digestible.
Final Thought:
Each person reads your proposal through a different lens. To succeed:
Be technically deep for the SME,
Be mission-focused for the Requirement Owner,
Be clear and professional for the Filler.
If you’d like help with your proposal, feel free to reach out.